[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13890-13891]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             GUANTANAMO BAY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, on a very timely subject, we 
understand that discussions are underway on the conference report on 
the supplemental. I think it is important to remind everybody in the 
House and in the Senate that, just a few weeks ago, the Senate answered 
the question that has concerned Americans and that is this: whether the 
terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be transferred 
stateside to facilities that could be in or near their communities.
  By an overwhelming vote of 90 to 6, the Senate said: No way, not 
without a plan. It passed the bipartisan Inouye-Inhofe amendment that 
bars the administration from transferring these terrorist detainees 
into the United States--90 to 6.
  This is not a change in the Senate's position. Just a few years ago, 
the Senate, by a vote of 94 to 3, said the same thing: We should not 
move some of the

[[Page 13891]]

world's most dangerous terrorists out of Guantanamo's modern, safe, and 
secure facility into our country.
  The views of the Senate are abundantly clear. Nevertheless, it has 
been reported that congressional Democrats are privately considering 
the entreaties of the White House to repudiate these very clear views 
and to allow terrorist detainees to come into the United States.
  What has changed? What has changed in the last couple weeks?
  The views of the American people have not changed. In fact, they are 
more firmly opposed to this now than they were 2 months ago. Nor have 
the dangers and difficulties of moving the detainees into the United 
States.
  The FBI Director, a couple weeks ago, testified about the dangers of 
holding these terrorists in the United States. Most of us are familiar 
with the problems Alexandria, VA, experienced with the trial of just 
one terrorist: security problems, transportation problems, logistical 
problems, commercial problems and on and on. Indeed, if you want to try 
these detainees by military commission--something I support--there is 
no better place than the $12 million modern courtroom right there at 
Guantanamo Bay.
  The administration's supporters point to Supermax as a place to house 
these terrorists. But our colleagues from Colorado don't support moving 
them there, nor is there anyplace in the facility to put them.
  The Denver Post reports there is just one bed open at Supermax--just 
one. That means these terrorists would have to come somewhere else, 
perhaps to a facility in your State.
  Why in the world would Senate Democrats be considering the idea of 
giving the administration millions of dollars for doing this, 
especially since we still don't have a plan?
  According to a Member of the Democratic leadership, it is because 
keeping terrorists at Guantanamo is a ``problem politically'' for the 
administration.
  That is most curious. Assuming this is a political problem, with whom 
does the administration have it? It is not with the American people. 
They don't want Guantanamo closed, and they certainly don't want its 
inmates transferred here. It is not with our colleagues from Colorado. 
They don't want these detainees transferred into their State any more 
than the rest of America does.
  It seems like the administration's ``political problem'' is a 
diplomatic one with the Europeans, who want the United States to accept 
some of these dangerous terrorists before they will. It is not in the 
interest of the United States to compromise our security to appease our 
European critics.
  Similar to most Americans, I am for keeping Guantanamo open. It is 
safe and securely away from our civilian population. Perhaps I could be 
persuaded to change my mind if the administration comes up with a plan. 
They have time to do that and still receive funding to execute a plan 
through the regular order when we take up the 2010 appropriations bills 
in a few months.
  But we should not rush to give the administration a blank check to do 
something, sight unseen, that Americans overwhelmingly oppose.
  As Senate Democrats have often said, the Senate is not a rubberstamp. 
We should not flip-flop on our vote of a few weeks ago.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________